nocutstoRAFThe recent Green Paper which is meant to be the basis of the SDSR says:
“We currently plan for the Armed Forces to be able to contribute to a wide range of operations – from counter-terrorism or direct intervention against hostile states to conflict prevention and disaster relief in the UK and abroad. In an international response to major crises, we aim to be able to contribute for a limited period up to two Naval Task Groups with one centred around an aircraft carrier, an Armoured Division and up to three Expeditionary Air Groups. For enduring crises, we aim to be able to contribute indefinitely a Naval Task Group, a Brigade and an Expeditionary Air Group. These planning assumptions are set out in Annex B.”
The key bit (in building my argument 🙂 ) from Annex B is:
“Scale of Effort
B.3 We categorise the UK contribution to an operation by three generic scales of effort; Small, Medium and Large. The following list gives some idea of the size of forces which might be assigned to each of these scales of effort. These numbers do not constrain the size of any specific mission, but they act as a yardstick for explaining our contribution in planning terms.
● Small Scale (e.g. Sierra Leone in 2000).
● RN: 1 Task Group containing approximately 1 Submarine and 10 Ships
● Army: 1 Battlegroup
● RAF: 1 Expeditionary Air Group comprising approximately 25 Fixed Wing and 10 Rotary Wing aircraft
● Medium Scale (e.g. Kosovo in 1999).
● RN: 1 Task Force containing approximately 2 Submarines and 20 Ships.
● Army: 1 Brigade.
● RAF: 1 Expeditionary Air Group comprising approximately 70 Fixed Wing and 20 Rotary Wing Aircraft
● Large Scale (e.g. Iraq in 2003).
● RN: 1 Task Force containing approximately 3 Submarines and 40
Ships
● Army: 1 Division
● RAF: Up to 3 Expeditionary Air Groups comprising approximately 130 Fixed Wing and 50 Rotary Wing aircraft”
I read this to mean that they must be able to field 3 squadrons without disrupting air security or normal training, and 9 is a pinch, this would suggest they cannot cut as far as being suggested by Jane’s but it may be that they will be looking at 4 – 5 squadrons of F-35B’s.
On a side note apparently we can share our opinions about the SDSR by writing or e-mailing to:
SDSR
Strategy Unit
Floor 4 Zone D
MOD Main Building
Horse Guards Avenue
London
SW1A 2HB
[email]SDR-SecretariatMailbox@mod.uk[/email]
nocutstoRAFThis is response to those who are a little annoyed by the Development Secretary who suggested scrapping the carriers to aid African kids read.
Personally, I am not annoyed or surprised as he is doing his job come up with ways of aid Southern countries by giving away our money – but I think he fails to grasp that the whole purpose of overseas development and aid is to promote British interests – win hearts and minds to get favourable access for our businesses, reduce economic migration, trafficking of drugs and to help head off problems before they require military intervention. Personally I wish DFID remit was part of the SDSR and tied closely into our foreign policy.
Also yet more stupid stories in the press this week-end and in the last few days about them either cancelling the carriers (yeah that is going to happen after placing £1.2 billion worth of sub-contracts) as being irrelevant to modern warfare or using the Prince of Wales as a permanent replacement for Ocean – I wish that Liam Fox would come out as soon as possible as say what he is going to do as I am not sure I can stand another few months of stupid press stories.
nocutstoRAFAn interesting question does arise, is there really a massive need for COD beyond what normal helicopters can provide on carriers? Do the French have a COD platform? And if the answer to that is yes, what cargo aircraft could land and take off from a QE? Are any of this new breed of cargo planes STOL enough and small enough to manage it?
Not sure the answer is yes to your question and I know very little about STOL cargo planes, but assuming that the ski jump is not a factor in minimum take of distance – then I found very little that could take of given the full length of QE
The most promising I could find was either Pilatus PC-6 or the PZL Sky Truck both with take of distances of under 280 metres.
This is based on information from oh so reliable Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_STOL_aircraft
I am sure there are better options but I could not find it.
nocutstoRAFWhile QE and PoW could handle an Osprey fitted with Tactical Organic Sensing System for the AEW role I cannot see how you could operate an Osprey off a Type 45 or Type 26 and I can see the usefulness of in a pinch operating a Merlin ASaC fitted with Cerberus off a destroyer or frigate – which is a long winded way of saying that I agree that I cannot see them using Osprey for AEW and therefore it is unlikely to be selected as a refuelling aircraft for the F-35B’s (which I think means I agree with you Grim901 but you might not necessarily see it that way 😀 )
nocutstoRAFThanks Boom – she does seem a lovely looking fighter and I think LCA-N needs a nice poetic name as well (though maybe one a little bit more war like than Tejas assuming the translation into English as Radiant is correct)
nocutstoRAFAny information yet on how much the LCA-N will be able to carry flying off a STOBAR carrier or what it typical load out will be in terms of drop tanks, ordnance and sensor pods?
Plus am I right in thinking the LCA-N will mainly be used to provide CAP for the carrier group, while the Mig-29K’s will be responsible for the strike missions?
PS is it a breach of ettiquette to call it Tejas-N as I notice everyone the thread is using LCA-N or some version of this!
nocutstoRAFYou are not wrong. they say “capability” what they mean is “no-one must die”. Its no way to run a military really.
Beyond the public’s reluctance to accept military deaths (and you only have look at adverts on TV to realise the Army is billed as a great way to get trained rather than focusing on serving the country) – trained personnel, especially the most specialist roles are difficult to recruit, train and retain so it is natural that the MoD will look to minimise casualties – so while I agree the public has to accept casualties, and the troops might have to accept rules of engagement which minimises civilian casualties even if it increases their risk of death or injury – we should also remember skilled armed forces personnel are an expensive commodity that we cannot afford to expend.
EDIT: Re-reading my comment have to say it makes me sound like a sanctimonious idiot – really meant just say it makes me angry when everyone acts like we should wrap soldiers up in cotton to protect them but on the other hand I get just as annoyed when it seems their lives are being wasted for nothing and their sacrifices are in vain – plus the way I see it their doing something I wouldn’t – thought about joining the RAF but in the end bottled it and took a safer route (plus being short-sighted ruled out the jobs I really wanted to do)
nocutstoRAFStormer is, according to the British Army, but I think the man portable system will be kept in service for a while yet.
http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/fighting-vehicles/1479.aspx
nocutstoRAFItaly already has it, though I think the RN wants a more capable (in terms of radar & systems) version –
http://www.marina.difesa.it/aeromobili/eh101.asp
Thanks for the photos – you are usually up to date on everything and I cannot find any information on this (in fact all I can find was the stories from last year about restructuring the helicopter forces, but nothing confirming it actually happened) – will the ex-Army Merlin’s handed over to the RN be retro-fitted with folding tail and rotor blades or will they have to operate them as is?
nocutstoRAFAEW Merlin to be unveiled at the Yeovilton Air Day…
Zeb
Intersting story, and nice to hear that Wildcat is on time and on budget, shame there were no photos of the AEW Merlin.
nocutstoRAFSigh – seems you are right, Star Streak is laser guided and aimed by the “gunner” using an opto-electric sight, makes it hard to re-jig to provide intercept capability – just seems a shame to waste the Stormer chassis, especially as I assume that they had to add in whole bunch of extra wiring and computer control systems to be able to mount Star Streak. I suppose they could buy some extra CIWS systems and mount them on the Stomer so that they can deploy them easily at FOB’s but I suspect the integration costs would be too high to fit a turreted CIWS on the chassis. Still I wonder what the doing with 100 odd Stormer’s they are decommissioning.
nocutstoRAFThere is nothing wrong with your explanation – I think that the age of 36 I still not grown out of an adolescent need to drool over equipment and think of everything in terms of buying military hardware.
As you rightly point out they (MoD) should think first about what they need to do then think about the best way to do it, then decide if they legacy equipment that could do the job as is or with a redesign, implement new ways of working or buy new equipment.
In a sense the MoD already do this in Afghanistan but in a haphazard and badly thought out way – i.e. they needed a way to stop rockets and mortars attacks, they could have spent lots of money buying in a new system or get Thales or somebody to design a new one for them, instead they borrowed the RN CIWS systems to provide protection which left RN short. Personally I cannot help but wonder with a software tweak if the Stormer HVM’s could not have provided intercept capabilities (I am off to look a bit more closely at Star Streak’s seeker head to see if it could have done the job) rather than take them out service as is being done currently.
nocutstoRAFBut anyway, i’m still not sure the carriers are safe. The fact they are strategically vital does not save them automatically from politicians and their wishes to cut, cut, cut on the military and on the RN maily. I hope they’ll both come along.
As to the CATOBAR solution… i actually think it is not so absurd to assume it may lead to some savings, despite the cost of catapults.
Given that the carriers are part paid for already, and the contracts in place are likely prohibitively expensive to cancel the RN will get the carriers. I think they will even get a 1 for 1 replacement of their frigates, what is at risk is the size and availability of the fighter wings on the carriers and this is where I see the RN have a real battle.
I personally like CATOBAR but not if it is implemented like the papers suggest only on the Prince of Wales, as then it is just plain stupid, both carriers should either be STOL or CATOBAR not a 50:50 split – I cannot see how they would save money operating two small forces of F-35B and F-35C rather than a medium sized force of F-35B. The only way I could see the plan making even a tiny bit of sense (and I would still think it was badly thought out and would cost more not less) would be if the RAF/FAA was to get a small purchase of F-35B, some of which will fly from QE and then the FAA also gets some Rafale-M to operate from PoW and we share the maintenance and training of with the French
nocutstoRAFmeh, sort of…(thats still quite platform centric) it would be more like saying “what is the best way to provide the various functions of ‘escort’ the Navy needs to provide?”
I am not sure I will ever quite get it as while I can think in terms of the role that needs to be filled I quickly look to see what is available to fill that role in terms of equipment.
Am I still being to equipment centric if I say for example what about the role of providing humanitarian relief (like Haiti) – i.e. depending on the disaster you could get the RAF provide helicopters, the RN can deploy ships like Ocean to evacuate or RFA to provide supplies but you could also argue that they could look at having 1 or 2 converted merchant ships in dock which carry engineering equipment, and arrange to have on call Royal Engineers to use the equipment, with the ships having space to embark medical teams or volunteers from NGO’s which could then steam to a disaster to help out.
I think that as long as the Government goes into the SDSR with an open mind they might come out of it the other side without salami slicing the military to pieces. However I think the reality of what they need to do (IMHO shrink the army into specialist highly mobile force merged with RAF regiments and marines, re-focus RAF more on heavy lift and helicopters and less on fast jets, and expand the RN) will not be popular enough to be what they will actually do. I would also like to see more experimental types of equipment in their inventory (such as tethered ISTAR blimps on land or on littoral vessels, wider range of unmanned systems – land, air and sea and maybe the use of Invincible class as a test platform for a UAV carrier).
nocutstoRAFFull speeches by Nick Harvey, Minister of State for Armed Forces and Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, First Sea Lord from RUSI Martime Conference which have been quoted in the press today
http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4C3469BA71A88/
http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4C3465CAB573C/
As far as I can see their speeches are a ringing endorsement for aircraft carriers and the importance of naval power.
With regard to the various stories about fitting PoW with a catapult and flying F-35C’s of them I think it is either a misunderstanding by the papers on what is being discussed or part of the on-going sniping at the carriers which seem an easy target in these financially constrained times for newspapers and former Army officers to take a pop at (alternatively it is all a cunning plan by the MoD to switch to CATOBAR while making it sound like they are doing it save money)
Sign In
